Blood Pressure Management in Acute Stroke: Comparison of Current Guidelines with Prescribing Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Current recommendations for treating elevated blood pressure (BP) in the acute stroke are based largely on expert opinion and vary with regard to treatment thresholds and choice of antihypertensive agents. In this study we investigate the influence of these recommendations by comparing the management of hypertension in acute stroke at a tertiary care hospital with current guidelines. METHOD: Retrospective chart review of patients admitted with acute stroke at The Ottawa Hospital-General Campus over six consecutive months. The use of antihypertensive medications (type, dose, routes of administration, BP recordings) in the first seven days after admission was noted. RESULTS: Transdermal nitroglycerin paste was the most commonly used antihypertensive agent. In contrast to the 15% reduction in BP over 24 hours recommended for lowering BP in hypertensive patients with ischemic stroke, nitroglycerin caused a >15% reduction of BP over the first 24 hours on 60% of the occasions used. Furthermore, despite concerns about sublingual nifedipine, this was the second most commonly prescribed agent. Surprisingly, the mean time to first BP measurement following initiation of antihypertensive therapy was 117 +/- 43 minutes in ischemic stroke and 88 +/- 89 minutes in hemorrhagic strokes. CONCLUSIONS: The current guidelines for management of acute poststroke hypertension appear to have little influence on prescribing patterns, leading to considerable variations in practice. Such variations, likely due to uncertainty caused by lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials, are intolerable as patients maybe submitted to nonstandardised, potentially harmful care such as inappropriate choice of antihypertensives and inadequate BP monitoring as observed in this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".